This is one of my favorites.. Because as John was said to of been bringing the EliYah message of Repentance as a forerunner to Yahshua's coming then .., so are we bringing this message that Yahshua brought.. He quoted from Isa 61 but did not finish the Prophecy when he returns then the rest is finished but we are to bring this message of Hope as Yahshua did as He began.. Blessings..Miles

Luke 4:16-22

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

18 "The Spirit of Yahweh is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the Evangel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of Yahweh."

20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." 22 So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said,"Is this not Joseph's son?"
NKJV

Isa 61:1-2

"The Spirit of Yahweh Elohim is upon Me,
Because Yahweh has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of Yahweh,
Isa 61:2-3
And the day of vengeance of our Elohim; ( This he left out for it is to come)
To comfort all who mourn,
3 To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of Yahweh, that He may be glorified."
NKJV

NKJV

The problem with this is that if Mark, Matthew or Luke, wrote these things they are not impressive. Especially considering that they are apparently just a re-hashing of Mark's original story.

Why?

Well, it should be crystal clear. If a person suspects that Mark, Matthew, and Luke are attempting to create a story to convince their readers that Jesus was "The Christ", then, they just claim that Jesus did this, when in fact, he may have never done any such thing.

This is one huge problem with Christian and Christianity. Christians look at the New Testament as the "Gospel Truth". They refuse to question its validity. So they begin with the assumption that everything it says is true, and work from there.

Well, if you do that you'll clearly be convinced that these author were speaking for God. And you can even forget about something as trivial as you've just mentioned. All you need to do is accept their claim that a voice spoke from the heavens saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased", and you're finished, you have absolute confirmation that Jesus was the son of God right there.

Of course that depends entirely on your conviction to believe the "Gospels".

What non-believers can show is that in every instance, the claims could have easily been made up, and there's really no reason to accept them at face value.

So all you're basically doing is asking us to be 'duped' by these authors because they were clever enough to root through the old testament and make up stories that make Jesus appears to have done things that claim that he was "The Christ". That was their entire goal in their writings, to try to convince the readers that Jesus was "The Christ".

In fact, I find the claim that God spoke to a crowd from heaven saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased", to be extreme desperation on the part of the authors of the New Testament. Obviously they felt that they may not be convincing the readers so they use this to insure the reader that God himself had validated their claims.

In fact, it's things like this that cause non-believers to roll their eyes.

It's like it's not obvious that these authors are extremely desperate to try to convince the readers of their case, that they even start tossing in utter absurdities, basically saying, "Oh and by the way, if you don't believe us perhaps you'll believe the voice of God coming from the sky?"

Yeah right.

No, these authors haven't convinced me, and they weren't able to convince the Jews, or Muslims either.

If God truly wanted to speak to mankind saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased", why bother saying that to an insignificant obscure crowd that no one ever heard from again?

There is no independent historical account of anyone actually reporting this event outside of these gospel stories.

If a God truly had a message to mankind and wanted everyone to believe that Jesus was his son why not speak to the far more significant crowd when Jesus was being accused of blaspheme?

The bottom line for me is that these stories make no sense.

There would have been absolutely no reason for God to have spoken to a totally insignificant crowd of people like these gospels claim. Clearly they are making this claim just to try to convince the readers that God has actually verified their claims that Jesus was "The Christ".

So to even use these writings in the way that you use them as "evidence" that just "must have been the Christ", is an extremely weak presentation because in truth all you are basically asking people to do is to accept that the gospels are indeed TRUTH.

Well, you're only going to convince the Christians of that, because that's what they already believe. But you're certainly not going to convince a non-believer, because the non-believers already fully understand why your presentation doesn't support anything.

All you're doing is basically saying, "Hey look! If we actually believe what the authors of the New Testament have written, we have no choice but to conclude that Jesus was the Christ!"

Well, no kidding!

We already know that.

God spoke from heaven saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased"

If you believe the writings of the New Testament, you have no choice but to believe that Jesus was the son of God.

That's a given!

So the question isn't whether or not the authors of the New Testament are making these claims, obviously they are. But rather the more serious question is whether or not they are to be believed.

I personally don't believe that God spoke from heaven saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased"

And so I highly question the story that you've just describe that has Jesus claiming to have fulfilled the scripture of Isaiah.

I'm not about to accept the writings of authors who have already told me that God spoke from heaven saying, "This is my beloved son in whom I'm well pleased"

They've already lost any credibility at that point, as far as I'm concerned, and they have already revealed their desperation to try to convince the readers of their tales.

If they'll stoop to that, they'll stoop to anything.

That's how I see it.

What non-believers can show is that in every instance, the claims could have easily been made up, and there's really no reason to accept them at face value.

Have you read Prius or Josephus?

Cowboy wrote:

Do you believe Martin Luther spoke out for the blacks in the USA? That could easily have been made up. Do you believe Adolf Hitler was in charge of the Holocaust? That could easily be made up. ANYTHING from history COULD have been made up. It's what you wish to put faith in.

What non-believers can show is that in every instance, the claims could have easily been made up, and there's really no reason to accept them at face value.

What non-believers can show is that in every instance, the claims could have easily been made up, and there's really no reason to accept them at face value.

have you considered that the new testament writers were not looking forward to having a "book" that contained all of their writings. did they know that what they wrote would be attached to other writings. did they gather at one place and decide how to intertwine all their stories

No, and the contradictions in the stories, one from the next, show that. But according to dogma, _God_ was the nexus for the so called Truth. So, how could an omniscient being fail to cross all the t's and dot all the i's for a work which he is supposed to have ghostwritten?
-Kerry O.

so if an omniscient being did created such a book, it would be perfect. perfect by the created standards or the creators standards

Of all topics on mingle2, this is, by far, my favorite one. I love to see all of these viewpoints. It is also refreshing to see that many of us can have a rational and reasonable conversation.

Awesome job, all!

I have reasons to believe that these fairly modern events were most likely true. Moreover, believing in them, or not believing in them would not change my life in any way since I don't live my life based on whether or not they are true.

Moreover, this type of argument isn't going to help your case if you are interested in propping up the views of the ancient Hebrews above all other views.

Because what you've failed to mention is to ask why anyone would put their faith in the Hebrew picture of God over any other picture of God. There are many other pictures to choose from. The Eastern Mystical views, the view of the Wiccans, the view of the American Indians, even the views of the Ancient Greeks for that matter.

So you argument here actually deteriorates you position that the Hebrew Bible should be held above all else.

You seem to always been shooting yourself in your own foot with your own arguments.

By the way, my conclusion that Jesus was a Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva fits in perfectly with everything we know about history and it also removes all absurdities and contradictions.

So the conclusions I've come to about the ancient Hebrew stories is already on firmer ground than the story you're attempting to paint.

If you think otherwise, it can only be due to your own lack of knowledge of history and religions.

By the way, what I said stands:


If a non-believer in the mortal men and historical events that you have mentioned can be shown to be made up, then people should dismiss them as well.

I personally have reason to believe that they were not made up. There is too much independent historical evidence to easily refute them.

The truth of the matter is that there is absolutely NO independent historical evidence to support most of the claims of the Bible.

Have there been any independent historical reports of a man going around healing every manner of disease at the time Jesus supposedly lived?

No. No such independent historical reports exist. The only place where here about this is from the a very FEW stories in the bible.

Have there been any independent historical reports of God speaking to a crowd from the sky?

No. No such independent historical reports exist. The only place where here about this is from the a very FEW stories in the bible.

Have there been any independent historical reports of a myriad of saints raising from their graves and going into the Holy City to show themselves to the people there?

No. No such independent historical reports exist. The only place where here about this is from the a very FEW stories in the bible.

The list goes on and on and on.

No such independent historical reports exist. The only place where here about this is from the a very FEW stories in the bible.

So the real question is, "Why should anyone believe these unconfirmed stories?"

There is absolutely no historical reason to give them any merit at all.

I have reasons to believe that these fairly modern events were most likely true. Moreover, believing in them, or not believing in them would not change my life in any way since I don't live my life based on whether or not they are true. laugh

I personally have reason to believe that they were not made up. There is too much independent historical evidence to easily refute them.

have you considered that the new testament writers were not looking forward to having a "book" that contained all of their writings. did they know that what they wrote would be attached to other writings. did they gather at one place and decide how to intertwine all their stories

They obviously knew of the rumors. In fact, most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke are just repeats of Mark. You can find many of the same accounts almost verbatim, but with obvious different twists.

For example, all three authors wrote the following words:



Matt.24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Mark.13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

Luke.21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

This is just one small example I just happen to have on hand. But this kind of thing is quite commonplace among their writings. It's clear that they had read the works of the previous author.

In fact most scholars credit Matthew with attempting to convey Mark's story to the Jews, and credit Luke with attempting to convey Mark's story to the gentiles.

So those three so-called "books" of the New Testament were clearly just rewrites of the stories told by Mark.

John tells a slightly different version of things and actually tries to tell the story in a slightly different way.

Paul seems to be commentary on all of these previous stories along with dragging in things from the Old Testament. Paul wrote about 75% for what's in the New Testament.

There is absolutely no independent historical evidence or writings to back up any of this.

Cowboy boy was trying to compare a 'belief' in the bible with a belief in far more modern events. However, there exists TONS of independent evidence about Martin Luther King Jr., and Hitler.

Not only do we have tons of totally different independent evidence, but we even have tons of independently taken photographs, and news reports.

In other words, for the historical evidence of the existence of Martin Luther King Jr. and someone like Hitler to be wrong, we'd need to believe that there was a HUGE conspiracy to create a massive HOAX.

But in the case of the Bible, all that's required is that a handful of authors exaggerated a single single solitary rumor that has no independent evidence at all.

There's no comparison at all between the bible and other typical historical events. Typical historic events are usually backed up by tons of independent historical evidence.

In fact, if we have information that is nothing more than the hearsay rumors of just a few people, we highly question that. We recognize that it may very well have been nothing more than an uncredible rumor.

Cowboy boy was trying to compare a 'belief' in the bible with a belief in far more modern events. However, there exists TONS of independent evidence about Martin Luther King Jr., and Hitler.

Not only do we have tons of totally different independent evidence, but we even have tons of independently taken photographs, and news reports.

Peter Pan wrote:

This is the main problem that opponents of the "Bible" have.

It is only them and a few "believers" who claim God wrote it. The rest of the world realises that it was written by man. I however, will not discount that it was "inspired" by God...

I've never met anyone who actually believes that God wrote the Bible. But many hardcore Christian fundamentalists act like it contains the verbatim WILL of God's own thoughts and directives.

That's basically the same thing as saying, "Sure it was physically written by the hand of Man" but the actual words are indeed the verbatim thoughts of God.

That's far more than merely being "inspired" by God.

If it's considered to be the verbatim word of God, that's basically saying that God WROTE IT, even if using the physical hands of men to pen it.

On the other hand if we suggest that it was merely "inspired" by God that leaves the gate WIDE OPEN to error. It can no longer be considered to be "infallible" in a verbatim sense.

So the hardcore Christian fundamentalists lose their power to use the book as "God's infallible word".

More over, if we allow that God can inspired men to write spiritual thoughts, then there's no reason to believe that he would limit this to just the Hebrews. Once we accept that God can be an inspiration for men, then we need to look at all spiritual writings all around the world from every religion from Eastern Mysticism, to Wicca, to the beliefs of the American Indian, etc.

I'm all for that.

But then the 'verbatim' approach to the Hebrew writings quickly loses any superior clout that the Christians would love for it to have.

More over, if we allow that God can inspired men to write spiritual thoughts, then there's no reason to believe that he would limit this to just the Hebrews. Once we accept that God can be an inspiration for men, then we need to look at all spiritual writings all around the world from every religion from Eastern Mysticism, to Wicca, to the beliefs of the American Indian, etc.

Cowboy wrote:

Yes and I can show you tons of evidence of the moon walk I took last night. I can show you tons of evidence of my trip to Australia last weekend. And if you find that interesting, I'll show you evidence of the trip to China I'm gonna take this weekend. Again, evidence is only as good as the faith YOU wish to put in it.

You seem to have totally missed the point Cowboy.

You'd need to show me where there is any independent evidence of your claims.

In other words, you show me all the evidence you want. I'm not impressed yet. I'll take the evidence you've shown me and ask around to see if I can find anyone else who can verify your claims. If I can't find a statistically sounds sampling of independent evidence I'd just give you the so-called "evidence" that you gave me and tell you, "Sorry, I'm not convinced".

Apparently you've totally missed the point I was making.

I want to talk with the people who helped launch you to the moon. Or at least see the records from those events if those people are no longer around.

If you can't produce THAT kind of independent evidence, then I see no reason to believe anything you claim. Just like I see no reason to believe those ancient Hebrews.

Cowboy wrote:

Wouldn't make a difference. You can NOT prove anything in this world my friend. I do not believe in the landing on the moon, it's all fabricated to make the government appear powerful. I do not believe the world is round, you can not prove this for all evidence of it has been fabricated. I do not believe Adolf EVER did anything to the Germans, it's all fabricated to gain sympathy.

Are you being comical on purpose? I certainly hope so, because what you just said here is quite comical.

You are prepared to totally discount the Moon landing as an extremely complex HOAX that would have needed to be orchestrated by thousands of cooperating individual all over the world.

You are also prepared to totally discount the actions of Hitler and Nazi Germany as an extremely complex HOAX that would have needed to be orchestrated by thousands of cooperating individual all over the world.

Yet, you expect us to accept the far-removed extremely ancient rumors of a handful of men who have absolutely no independent evidence for their stories?

That truly is comical Cowboy.